SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 February 1876)

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, complained of the unusual course taken by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord C. J. Hamilton), a Director of the Great Eastern Railway Company, in moving the rejection of this measure on its second reading. The noble Lord had given Notice to read one portion only of the Bill—which contained many other subjects—that day six months. That portion was an extension of the Metropolitan Railway, supported by the Board of Works, from High Street, Aldgate, to the crossing of the East London Railway on the Bow Road. Yet the whole Bill was to go because the Great Eastern objected to one small part of it. He declined to discuss the merits of the Bill, which the House remitted to Select Committees. 808 But he claimed the right to be heard, as a constitutional right for the Petitioners for this Bill. There was nothing in the Bill contrary to precedent, and he hoped the House would not refuse to read it a second time.

§ LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON
said, this was an "omnibus" Bill, giving the Metropolitan Railway Company power to make extensions in different parts of the metropolis; but the part to which he wished to draw particular attention was what was called "the Whitechapel extension." On more than one occasion Committees had declined to sanction schemes by this Company for extensions to Whitechapel until they had fulfilled their obligation to complete the Inner Circle; and this proposal was even more objectionable than the plan rejected in 1874, because it related to an isolated single line having no connection with the Metropolitan or any other railway. It would, therefore, be of no advantage to the public. The Great Eastern Railway Company, of which he was a Director, had spent £4,000,000 in making their new Liverpool Street Station and bringing their line on a level with the Metropolitan, and yet if this Bill passed the passengers who came by the Great Eastern from all parts of the North would be unable to go East, and could only travel to the West of London. The object of the Bill was to relieve the Metropolitan Railway Company from obligations imposed on it by Parliament, and he therefore moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. SAMUDA
remarked that the Bill would not contribute to the completion of what was known as the Inner Circle. It was a line which had no beginning and no end, which came to a dead lock at the East End of London, and was in no sense an extension of an existing railway. Moreover, it was a single 809 line. The real object of the promoters was to occupy the ground, and to prevent other persons coming to Parliament hereafter. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.

§ MR. RITCHIE
supported the Amendment because his constituents objected to the proposal which the Bill was intended to authorize. He protested against the opponents of any measure of this kind being dragged year after year, at considerable expense, before Parliamentary Committees until their resources were exhausted, and they were compelled to give up their contest with a wealthy Company.

MR. GORDON
trusted the House would not throw out the Bill, because a portion of it would be very beneficial to Chelsea and Fulham.

§ COLONEL MAKINS
said, that unless it were shown that this line was absolutely necessary for the good of the public, and that the Bill did not mean an indefinite postponement of the completion of the Inner Circle, he should vote for the Amendment.

§ MR. RAIKES
remarked that this was an "omnibus" Bill, and opposition had been offered with respect to one only of four lines which it was proposed to construct. Some opposition was offered as regarded Whitechapel, and it was urged that as there was a deficiency of railway accommodation for East London, the Circle ought in the first instance to be completed. In dealing with such a Bill, however, the interests of Chelsea ought to be considered, as well as those of the Tower Hamlets. It might be desirable to adopt some of these Bills, which might be dealt with according to their individual merits. At the same time there were objections to the Bill besides those mentioned by the noble Lord; one being that the contractor was to be paid by a rent-charge, which was to have precedence over all other rent-charges granted by the Company, except those granted to landowners. Another and a stronger objection was that the Bill would enable the Company to pay interest—that was to say, in his opinion, dividends—out of capital. Weighing the arguments pro and con., if that clause were abandoned, and the House might do well to read the Bill a second time, and if it were sent to a strong Committee, a sound conclusion might be arrived at; 810 but for himself he would not vote for the Bill until the hon. Member for Hythe gave an assurance that the clause which enabled the Company to pay interest out of capital should be expunged.

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN
said, he did not think the clause referred to would enable the Company to pay dividends out of capital; it was not intended to do any such thing, and a similar power was given to the Great Eastern Railway in 1872. The rentcharge clause was such as that enacted by Parliament in the Metropolitan District (Hammersmith) Act of 1874. The clause alluded to would be expunged in deference to the opinion of the hon. Member for Chester. There was no precedent for rejecting such a Bill upon the second reading, and the Amendment was avowedly in opposition to only one out of 22 separate objects.